of the stage, also Influenced the development of this
design. In all these cases llying room is needed to raise
the panels. Without a lolt another way had to be devised
in our case. Instead of a hard material, why not a solt
one; why not drapery of some sort, overlapped to mask,
and individually operated? It was in this direction that
the solution eventually went, again provided by many
contributors. Here was a case then, where the presence
of a consultant in touch with related developments, in
professional and educational fields, initiated a solution
to escape some of the limitations of horizontal movement
in a theatre.
In many ways, the consultant is a designer who because
of his intimate kno ledge of theatre production and performance in a variety of styles can provide expert advice
to the owner, can often offer creative solutions to problems, and can warn him of unfavourable consequences
as a result of unfunctional design. Because he is a theatre man, he is dedicated to making this tool work. The
architect, on the other hand, is by his very function not
only concerned with creating a design for a building, but
also translating it into reality. Only then is his work
completed. Therein lies a difference which frequently
is significant and sometimes decisive: the architect rarely
is a theatre man and so he rarely uses the building; the
theatre consultant learned his art by using the theatre.
As a result, the architect, for all his training, sometimes
does not know what must be done; must sometimes be
motivated to correct what is not yet functional. On the
contrary, the consultant must recognize the architect's
need to follow a schedule and meet due dates and support his overall responsibility to get the job done and
done well and beautifully.
An assessment of growth in the last quarter-century reveals big changes and that most of them are from the
recent past. If we keep hewing to the I ine, we should
gradually diminish the number of horrors which are still
being erected in the onrush of the theatre building
fever that has spread across North America. Many errors
are of a nature that can be corrected, but a building
that is wrong is with us for its entire, miserable life.
Therefore, we should all make a practice of ending our
speeches with a Cato-like demand for the destruction
of this evil, not "carthago delenda est" but rather
"malumdelendum est," and again, this year urge the
more positive step: Found a center to record the successes and failures as reported by the owner: Found
a center to test materials and products, and develop
techniques.
Donald Swinney
I.R. CODE: architecture - consulting
I think it has become quite obvious as we have gone
along here, that we need to define the term "consultant". Th is is a term, for example, that is used rather
freely. It is a perfectly legitimate one, but it does need
clarification. I would say that a consultant is one who
gives advice of a particular kind engendered by that person's knowledge, that person's skill, that person's intimate contact with the subject. Obviously, therefore, we
can have a number of consultants. Perhaps we need to
say that he is a specialist, but one who may in some
instances be diverse as well. I think we have been
talking here about a theatre consultant in such a way that
the definition must encompass several things. As it applies to initial planning, it implies an intimate knowledge
of the theatre in all its production aspects, but does
not necessarily demand that the consultant be versed in
mechanical problems such as overall structural engineering,
etc., except as they relate to or may impinge upon the
problem at hand; i.e. of creating a structure that will
fulfill the function of production. So, we must define the
term. There are those, of course, as you well know, who
special ize in seating plans, who specialize in certain facil ities such as traffic handling, there are those who specialize in the mechanics - stage mechanics, etc.
that ultimately the best plans are those that come as a
result of knowledgeable, skilled, interested people pooling
information for the solution of a common objective. The
consultant hopefully may give the owner the benefit of
knowledge and impartiality in assisting him to his ultimate
selection or final decision. Therefore, I would submit
that in my opinion the best results may be achieved when
the consultant works for the owner on a continuing basis.
I would like to emphasize a couple of the preceding
points a little bit further. Dr. Gaiser pointerl out one very
important consideration. That is, precisely how the consultant works. I think that Dr. Gaiser's statements were
implicitly directed to the point that the consultant really
serves hiS client best if he works with the client, and I
would subscribe to that particular theory. The consultant
has a very important role to play, and certainly he must
communicate, as M,ss Rosenthal pointed out, with all
involved.
There are certain ethics involved; there are the human
relations and there are the contacts if one is to achieve
the best results. But, by the same token, it seems to me
42
I will cite a couple of instances of what happens when
there is no continuity of follow-up. I worked on a job
once where over a long period of time I had no contact.
but came back later for checking. It was a joint architectural venture. I was working rather closely with one architect in the office where the designs were being done,
but then all working drawings were made in another office
thousands of miles away. As a result, I did not see
some of the plans until alter the contracts were let. The
most startl ing example I found of the kind of errors that
occur when supervision and continued follow-up is relaxed was in the electrical planning. When finally I got
my hands on electrical drawings, I found that the electrical engineer working on this project had completely neglected to put in, perhaps even saw no need for putting
in, house light switches. We had a beautifully laid-out
auditorium lighting plot but nothing connected between
ceiling and floor. I don't know how they were intended
to be controlled, but it was something that had to be
rectified very quickly.
Dr. Gaiser also pointed out that sometimes projects are
planned and subsequently dropped. From the standpoint
of the involvement of those who have been so intimately
concerned, there needs to be a check throughout the
whole of the production period, because decisions have
to be made constantly, adjustments have to be made,
and unfortunately, there are a whole host of surprises
that can occur.
I USITT I
THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page.
If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.